Dasch Pty Ltd v Bonnet Imports Pty Ltd & Ors [1995] FCA 619

Dasch Pty Ltd v Bonnet Imports Pty Ltd & Ors [1995] FCA 619

The applicant established a prima facie case under s. 52 against the corporate respondents and under s. 75B against Mr Parker; the delay did not warrant refusal of relief because some delay was reasonable while evidence was assembled and the respondents did not answer the inferences or justify their conduct; and the balance of convenience favoured relief given the applicant's undertaking as to damages and the difficulty of proving damage if the alleged conduct continued.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 August 1995
Procedural Posture
Trade Practices Act Proceeding / Interlocutory Notice of Motion for Relief
Outcome
Interlocutory relief granted until further order.
Legal Topics
['misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'accessorial Liability' 'interlocutory Relief' 'delay' 'balance of Convenience']
['trade Practices' 'consumer Protection' 'civil Procedure'] ['misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'accessorial Liability' 'interlocutory Relief' 'delay' 'balance of Convenience']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Trade Practices Act Proceeding / Interlocutory Notice of Motion for Relief

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether there was a prima facie case of breach of s. 52 of the Trade Practices Act by the corporate respondents arising from sale of a copied range of statuettes.' 'Whether there was a prima facie case against Mr Parker under s. 75B of the Trade Practices Act.' "Whether delay in seeking interlocutory relief should move the Court's discretion against granting relief." 'Whether the balance of convenience favoured interlocutory relief.']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant established a prima facie case under s. 52 against the corporate respondents and under s. 75B against Mr Parker; the delay did not warrant refusal of relief because some delay was reasonable while evidence was assembled and the respondents did not answer the inferences or justify their conduct; and the balance of convenience favoured relief given the applicant's undertaking as to damages and the difficulty of proving damage if the alleged conduct continued.

Court Disposition

Interlocutory relief granted until further order.

Orders

  • ['Order pursuant to paragraph 1 of the notice of motion, until further order.' 'Matter to be brought back for further directions within four weeks.']